Like the other presidential candidate from Arizona Barry Goldwater, John McCain will return to the Senate for the rest of his natural life. John McCain has made comebacks from political death before, and he seems on track to rehabilitate himself once again. His role seems veering toward that of a deal-broker once again. Without the need to appease the GOP’s hard right base, McCain can return to being a “mavrick”, (but for real this time). McCain and Obama’s meeting earlier last month showed a defeating looking McCain agreeing to work with a President Obama. John McCain has two choices, he can either keep with his new image as the old man of the Republican party (complete with lost election), or he can actually become Obama’s republican ally in the Senate. Sounds werid doesn’t it?

McCain will run for reelection to the Senate in 2010. Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona was floated as a candidate to seize John McCain’s seat in the Senate, however it appears she will be tapped for Homeland Secuirty Secretary. After his dismal presidential run, and the Democratic gains in Arizona, John McCain seems vulernable for the first time in a long while. Democrats seem reluctant however, to seriously attempt to remove McCain from the Senate, as he often acts as a deal-broker in the Senate, often to the benifit of Democrats. For conservatives, McCain acts a RINO straw man that they can use against moderates in their own party. McCain will rebound, thats for sure, but he seems intent on going back to his roots. He will not make an attempt for the 2012 nomination (for obvious reasons), and will have to come to terms with the fact he will never fufill his lifelong ambition of being president. As for Republicans, they can look forward to more tough Senate fights in 2010, and the unenviable task of choosing someone to run against an Incumbent Barack Obama.

I believe that Barack Obama can avert another 60’s. Perhaps this sounds counterintuitive or even pessimistic. It is not meant to be either. The election of Barack Obama brings on another possibility. It is the possibility of breaking unfortunate repetitions of human behavior. Barack Obama may be able to circumvent a simmering resentment of our government that made so much in the 1960’s necessary and so painful to many.

People often look back on the 60’s and early 70’s with a definite degree of romanticism. People with long hair, making love in the forest and singing beautiful music can warm the hearts of aging accountants with revisionist personal histories. The 60’s make people think of the Age of Aquarius, a time when so many things were possible and the only limitations existed in the mind and the quality of the mushrooms. The ‘60’s is thought of as a time of social revolution tied with the embrace of the wretched, two concepts rarely seen together in political history.

TheatreAddicts.com 7/2007

However, the 60’s also meant the burning of American cities, the murder of ideological activists and the beginning of American adventurism in the form of spreading terror as well as democracy in the world. A few people during this time recorded great accomplishments, often at the cost of their own lives. The 60’s brought into the public consciousness the images of dogs attacking black people, naked girls running from napalm and dead students at formerly quiet universities.

John Paul Filo, 1970

Others simply rode the wave of this time for their own amusement. Tim Leary might have had great progressive ideas, but he really just wanted to get high. Leary became psychologically addicted to LSD and tried to get as many bright minds to follow him into his own Wonderland. I know he talked about things much deeper, but he will never be known for anything more. He went on tour with G. Gordon Liddy twenty years later.

Jerry Rubin ran wild in the 1960’s, generating counter-culture sloganism and culminating his urination on conservative society with activities in the 1968 Democratic National Convention that resulted in the Chicago 8 / Chicago 7 Trial. When the bills didn’t get paid with political petulance, Rubin became a business investor. He went on tour with Abbie Hoffman for a fee in the 1980’s. When Abbie Hoffman died, he and David Dellinger were the only ones out of the Chicago 8 / Chicago 7 at his funeral. Rubin was killed by a car with a significant stock holding in Apple Corporation.

Martin Luther King, Jr. brought the concept of Satyagraha to North America and proved that racial oppression could be fought without a single gun or bomb. He insisted that his protesters dressed formally so they would not look like hippies and thugs. He insisted that people did not fight the authorities even when the authorities injured them. He gained wonderful momentum, bringing the Kennedy family into the fight, Robert much more willingly than John. Even Malcolm X, changed by his hajj to Mecca (yes, that’s right, Mecca in the 60’s was an origin of racial harmony) and influenced by King, Jr., changed his tune to one of more peaceful resolution. The 60’s also brought the assassins that killed Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. After that, racial progress fell into inconsistency, self-service and sublime discrimination.

The 60’s had the Great Society, a well-intended but mishandled attempt to keep the cities from burning and to bring the poor out of the ashes. Lyndon Johnson tried to keep a war going while redistributing wealth at the same time. Eventually something had to break and the Great Society fell first. Then Vietnam fell into the hands of the communists and the American spirit slowly fell into a “malaise”.

Time Magazine, 2007

These times have many similarities to the negative side of the 60’s, only without a decent drug to escape it all. Instead of pot and LSD to deny our problems, we have crack and meth, drugs that destroy instead of simply cover. We have unpopular military actions, this time in two countries and possibly three. Even as we boast about our progress in Iraq, we see Afghanistan fall into chaos and Iran apparently asking to be attacked by our impatient and reactionary leadership. Immigrants make up a new class of people to be hated and persecuted. Notice how the word for undocumented people went from “immigrant workers” to “illegal immigrants” to the objects, “illegals”. Minorities and young Americans openly question the veracity of governing institutions, although their numbers in protest are miniscule compared with yesteryear.

Crimethinc.com, 2008

Barack Obama does not represent merely a revolt from the diseased status quo, in spite of what Rush Limbaugh might say. Barack Obama is part of both the old guard and needed revolution. Obama is an Ivy League educated, well-connected part of the political culture. He is also an African American with ideas of community organization, social justice and strong international negotiation. Barack Obama is quite capable of shifting paradigms from existing paradigms at the same time. Obama can push for economic justice while railing against deadbeat fathers that won’t pay for their children. Barack Obama can speak of talking with our enemies while promising to throw bombs into Pakistan if it means killing Osama bin Laden.

Neublack.com, 2008

Barack Obama has many problems to face but much credit to take if things even go from terrible to bad. He can refresh our view of government while not feeling stripped of its protective duties. Barack Obama can encourage us to think beyond our present position while remaining responsible to ourselves and society. The time of the Great Society brought just as much violence and self service as historical progress. Barack Obama can usher some more, much needed, change while keeping us on task socially, personally and morally.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president “Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” A pardon removes both punishment and guilt.

The president’s power to grant amnesty and pardons is unlimited. Congress or the courts cannot block any individual reprieves or pardons. The Framers of the Constitution created the pardon power as having a narrow purpose in times of war and rebellion. Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers No. 74, “In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the common wealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall.”

The pardon power has been used as the Framers reasoned them for; George Washington pardoned leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, and Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers following the Civil War. In 20th century, Jimmy Carter pardoned those who had evaded service in the Vietnam War; however, it has also been used, as they did not foresee. A long succession of presidents has used the pardon power much more broadly. Bill Clinton is only the most recent president to use the pardon power to forgive a wide range of criminal offenses. Many more pardons have been controversial. Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Richard Nixon for his actions in the Watergate Affair in 1974 for any crime he “may have committed.” George Bush’s 1992 pardons of six Reagan administration officials involved in the Iran-Contra Affair, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. Bill Clinton granted 395 pardons during his presidency, comparable in number to other recent presidents. However, of that total 140 were issued on his final day in office.

President Bush stands out in contrast to his predecessors. He has already denied more pardon and clemency petitions than any post-World War II president. In his first seven years in office, he rejected 5,966 requests, almost twice as many as Bill Clinton did in eight years, five times more than his father did in four years, and almost five times as many as Ronald Reagan did in eight years.

President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney stand accused of 39 grave and impeachable offenses, including war crimes, torture, warrant less wiretapping, and outing a covert CIA operative.

Most of these offenses are felonies for which Bush and Cheney can be criminally prosecuted after they leave office. But prosecutions will be impossible if Bush issues blanket pre-emptive pardons for Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, other senior officials.

Senior intelligence officers are lobbying President Bush to issue pre-emptive pardons for intelligence officers who followed his orders in the torture of terrorism suspects, according to a former CIA officer. “He gave them the green light to fight tough,” the officer said. “The view of many in the intelligence community is that he should not leave them vulnerable to legal censure when he leaves.”

In addition to CIA and military officers, others could include David Addington and William Haynes.

Such a pardon would decrease the risk that any future administration might take on a criminal investigation of operatives or policy makers involved in programs that administration lawyers have said were legal but that critics say violated a multitude of laws.

There is growing conjecture that Bush will issue pardons for the unlawful domestic surveillance program and torture program in his waning days in office. This pardon would be welcomed not only by his allies but some Democrats who have previously blocked any serious investigation into alleged crimes by the Administration. The pressures for pardons may be increasing with some Democrats publicly talking about serious investigations.

A “blanket pardon” would raise serious constitutional and criminal questions, though there was some model in the Kennedy and Carter administrations. One possibility being discussed is the use of a blanket pardon that would not individually name people but cover anyone associated with the unlawful programs.

Some legal analysts said Bush might be hesitant to issue such pardons because they could be seen as an unspoken admission of guilt.

“Before leaving office it is suspected that George W. Bush will issue a mass pardon, the largest collection of presidential pardons in American history. Bush will pardon Vice President Cheney, and a long list of officials involved in torture, eavesdropping, destruction of evidence, the CIA leak case and a range of potential crimes. On the destruction of evidence, disappearing e-mails, claims of executive privilege that most likely will be denied by the Supreme Court, false testimony to Congress the list goes on and on.”

There is an important point to this, often not recognized in official Washington during the Bush years, where the unthinkable becomes a way of life, and acts have been done that have never been done by an American president or administration.

The presidents ratings are already low enough that he wont care who he angers before he leaves office.

Presidential pardon power is nearly unlimited under the Constitution. The Founding Fathers clearly anticipated a corrupt President might pardon his co-conspirators, and specified impeachment as the remedy.

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, claimed “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter [pardon] him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty.”

A post-inaugural impeachment would prohibit those impeached from ever holding federal office, either elected or appointed. Arguably, impeachment would also nullify pre-impeachment pardons and permit prosecutions. Finally, impeachment would tell future Presidents they cannot abuse their pardon power to put themselves above the law.

Meanwhile, Democrats are proposing yet another commission to investigate the program.

“However, even with a blanket pardon there is still risk of consequences for the Administration. Torture violates international law, domestic law, statutory law, customary law, American law, European law — the list goes on. Eavesdropping without court order violates a statute, FISA, that includes severe criminal penalties. If the courts ultimately conclude that these laws were broken, considering the number of individual violations, and the penalties for each violation, the potential sentencing liability for anyone convicted would be huge.”

There will be a huge legal debate about the ability of a president to issue pardons so sweeping in their language that they cover all these potential areas of legal liability, and very possibly, it cannot be done.

If you think the president should be held accountable for his actions and that there is possibility that congress should impeach him, write your congress man, you have more influence than you might think.

As the clock winds down on the Bush presidency, it seems as though our 43rd president is not done putting his ideological stamp on the American political landscape – this time in the form of last minute executive orders and executive rule changes. This article discusses how he has gone about it and about how they plan on making them last far into an Obama presidency. Last May, White house chief of staff Josh Bolton instructed all of the offices within the cabinet to finalize any recommendations by November 1st. Why is that date significant? The rules state that if an order or regulation is finalized within 60 days, before the next president takes over, it can simply be overturned by the new administration by stopping the process. However, if a regulation has already taken affect by that time, it becomes nearly impossible to overturn it without congressional action. This guy discusses the process at length: As a result, the Bush administration has put numerous regulations on the table and it looks might have met the deadline on some of the most egregious ones. This list is tracking the regulations and indicates that it is business as usual for the Bush team. Allowing loaded guns into National Parks, easing pollution standards for factories, opening public land for oil shale exploration, easing restrictions on uranium mining and decreasing police surveillance restrictions are only a few of the ideological driven regulations that are in process. The practice of “midnight regulations” is nothing new but traditionally presidents will implement new regulations (such as Clinton banning two stroke snowmobiles -or “machines” if you’re from Alaska- from Yellowstone) instead of easing old ones. Most of the rules that Bush is proposing will ease common sense environmental and economic rules. According to Gary Bass, the executive director of OMB watch, the reason is very clear:

“This is Bush trying to leave a legacy that supports his ideology. This was very strategic and it was in line of the ideology of the Bush administration which has been to put in place a free market and conservative agenda.”

To be fair, the Bush adminstration has said that they are not up to anything shifty and responded by saying:

“We are not rushing regulations through at the last minute. We are simply continuing our responsibility of governing until the end of the president’s term,” said White House spokesman Carlton Carroll.

Well forgive me for taking Carroll’s words with a rather large grain of salt as this administration’s past track record is spotty at best. So how can the Democrats respond? Ironically, it might be the GOP that will end up giving the tools to the Dems to overturn these last minute rules. GOP pushed through the “Congressional Review Act” in 1996 for the expressed purpose of stopping Clinton from implementing last minute rules before he left office. This act allows congress to vote on rule changes that occur within 60 days of the end of the term by having an up or down vote – which has only happened once, when congress overturned an ergonomic workplace rule Clinton pushed for. However, the political ramifications of this are significant when the Obama team is trying to build a sense of bi-partisanship in the new congress.

That being said, if we take Obama at his word, there will be significant push back against these last minute rules and executive orders. On the campaign trail, Obama promised in the first 100 days his AG would look at every Bush Executive order and overturn things that look unconstitutional (so, take your pick). He reiterated his commitment to this promise on 60 minutes and said-much to the chagrin of Mitt Romney – definitively that he plans on closing Gitmo and restricting the use of torture by US forces.

while some of the regulations will remain due to the political realities of Washington, it is at least encouraging to see a leader take a stand on things he will not be able to easily back away from. Hopefully, Team Obama can minimize the damage done by Bush on the way out the door.

Due to the recent passage of Proposition 8, the class (and nation) has had a lot of discussion of the issue of Gay Marriage. We haven’t really focused on what rights Gay Couples are not permitted to have. This is a quite brief rundown on why Civil Unions are lacking as an answer to one of the Civil Rights issues in our time.

Civil Unions do not (and are unable to) confer federal rights.

With regard to taxes, couples in a civil union can file a joint tax return, but they can’t do so for federal taxes. It is oftentimes advantageous for couples to be able to file jointly; gifts to a partner or other transfer of assets can be taxed in a civil union.

When one’s partner dies, it is procedural for the survivor’s social security benefits to increase to a level commensurate with the couple’s earnings, rather than just the survivor’s earnings. From a personal standpoint, I have seen the positive impact of such a program: my Grandmother has been on survivor’s benefits (as well as SSI) for years. Those couples in a civil union can’t collect survivor’s benefits.

Health insurance issues are another example of missing rights. (Deep breath) Ok, here we go. This one’s a bit of a doozy, as this is the most complex of the issues surrounding the inadequacy of civil unions. Here are a couple of concerns regarding civil unions and health insurance:

Employers can choose whether or not they would like to provide health insurance benefits to spouses in a civil union if their private health plans are not subject to state law.

Even if subject to state law, most states do not compel employers to cover spouses in civil unions.

Additionally, in places like Vermont, children born to couples in a civil union are presumed to be the child of both members in the civil union. This presumption is not present in other states; the couple would likely have to go through the adoption process. This seems complex, but let me give an example:

Kristin (a woman) has a child while in a civil union with another woman, Jamie.

They decide together to name their baby girl Madison.

If the couple separates, and Kristin moves to Pennsylvania with Madison, then Jamie will not be presumed as a parent to the child.

This means that although the child was born while the parents were in a civil union, Kristin would have the ability to deny Jamie the right to visit, even if Jamie was willing to move to Pennsylvania to remain close to little Madison.

I believe that we all want to find love someday. If I find that, my friends, family, and society should be happy, regardless of who it is.

It’s now officially been a week since word leaked from the less-than leak-proof Obama transition team that Sen. Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Secretary of State position in the Obama administration. The flurry of media reports since have been spotty, at best—some alleging she’s already accepted and others hinting she may actually decline. Whatever the truth may actually be—I was, like probably everybody else, surprised by this move by Obama—I really think that regardless of his “change” message during the past two years of his campaign, he’s now as president-elect moving on to put together the most competent administration in ages, certainly the best in the last decade.

Hillary as secretary of state? I have two positions:

First, and foremost, naturally, I think Hillary would an extraordinary Secretary of State, and because of her stature coming off the primaries, where she campaigned on her preparedness and knowledge of international affairs, she would be in a better position than all of the other names floating around to fill the shoes of the nation’s top diplomat, to negotiate—play hard ball—and go toe-to-toe with the world’s leaders; and stepping in, she’d have more clout on the international stage as a recognized world leader than Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, or Condoleezza Rice had when they were appointed. Plus, she’s already had years of diplomatic experience as a backdoor diplomat as First Lady and in diplomatic missions as a U.S. Senator. Also, Hillary’s ascension to the top post in the Obama cabinet would be the just deserts to all the Obama-supporting Hillary-bashers who publicly trashed Hillary and her supporters during the primaries. People like Chris Matthews (who’s still trashing her). People like Keith Olbermann. People like all the left-wingers at blogs like the Daily Kos, who during the primaries, were the most toxic, cannibalistic progressives around. Now, these people have to either defend Hillary or question the infallible judgment of their chosen one. (I love it.) Roil, roil, roil indeed.

But, alas, as much as I think Hillary would be a great addition to the Obama administration, personally, I don’t want her to accept the job. I think she’s a national leader in her own right—one with 18 million votes behind her—with a platform for healthcare, children, women, the working class, and minorities; I think she would be giving up too much. Yet, it saddens and disappoints me to hear that she’s being road-blocked in the Senate and not being allowed to so much as share credit with Ted Kennedy (although that may be changing). A post in the Obama administration would instantly elevate her national stature, but at the cost of giving up a lot of the issues that are near and dear to her heart, not to mention her secure Senate seat, and potential future in the Democratic party and governing majority Democratic-controlled Senate. Finally, to put it bluntly, I don’t want her to be reduced to an Obama minion—one with symbolic, rock star wattage, but no real voice. I don’t want her to get blamed for any faux pas, or false starts of the Obama administration or to become a scapegoat for the activist left when or if the Obama administration loses its luster. I think she should stay in the Senate, and, in time, carve her own piece of history there—she’s already deeply admired by her colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, she doesn’t need this job, frankly. I hope Hillary says, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

Like it or not the Republicans will be trying to nominate a person in 2012 who can beat President Obama. I am sure we can all agree that depending on a variety of circumstances this may or may not be possible. But regardless of who wins the Presidency in four years from now, who will the Republicans nominate?

I believe I can accurately narrow the list of Candidates who will have a shot at taking on President Obama in four years. I will use mainly historical analysis to narrow the list of possible contenders and make an accurate prediction.

If we take a look at the most recent Presidential Republican primary in 2008, we find that John McCain was the Republican’s choice over all the rest. But was John McCain just lucky, was it hard work or was it fate? I would argue that is was all of the above, however we will look at fate.

My hypothesis is that Republicans rarely, if ever nominate a Candidate they are not familiar with or someone who is new on the scene. Democrats on the other hand I would argue throw their support behind just about anybody no matter what.

If we look at John McCain we must ask our selves, was he new to the scene? The Answer is no, he is a long time Republican Senator from the state of Arizona. He has been a leader in the party and the Senate. More importantly however is the fact that he ran against George W. Bush in 2000. This gave him I believe his shot at being nominated this year.

If we go back four years ago there were no primaries due to the fact that George W. Bush was already the President running for re-election.

If we go back to the 2000 Primaries we have the winner as George W. Bush as the Republican nominee. I would argue that Bush had great name recognition from his father which allowed him to circumvent my hypothesis. I guess in a way he can be my exception to the rule however he was still known by the party through his dad.

Let’s now travel back to the 1996 primaries. We have the winner Bob Dole taking the stage, however not for the first time. If we look back in history we will find that not only had Dole like McCain been a Republican leader in the Senate but he also ran on the ticket with President Ford in 1976 which I believe helped him get his shot at taking on President Clinton.

If we travel back further to the 1992 primaries we find the winner of the Republican nomination as none other than George H. W. Bush. Now Bush the First was certainly no newbie to politics, he was Vice-President to Ronald Reagan and had been a congressman, Ambassador and director CIA. While all of these things are good, I believe what gave him his shot was the fact that he ran in 1980 and lost to the Great Communicator.

The 1984 primaries did not exist due to the fact the Gipper was already the President and he was running for re-election.

Going back to the 1980 Republican primaries we find the victor, Ronald Reagan clinching the nomination. While Ronald Reagan may be one of my favorite Presidents I still believe that the only reason he got his shot was due to my hypothesis. While Reagan had great experience running the biggest state in our country this would have been meaningless if he had not ran against Ford in 1976, which gave him the familiarity needed to prevail in 1980.

1976 is a very strange election to analyze because I have never really considered Ford to be an actual President (Constitution stipulates Presidents must be elected by college electors). Never the less Ford won the nomination not because of his years of service in the house or as Vice-President but mainly because he was the “President” technically running for re-election.

The 1972 primaries were not needed due to the fact that Dick Nixon was being kicked around, and he was the current Republican president running for Re-election.

This brings us to our final example of the 1968 Republican primaries. We find our victor Richard Milhous Nixon. The main reason for his success was due to his prior success in winning the Republican nomination eight years earlier in 1960. Having already won a nomination one can argue that he would have familiarity just under being the President already.

So now for the fun stuff, predicting who the nominee for the Republicans will be in 2012. Based on our historical analysis we can accurately predict that the next Republican nominee will be a person who the party is already familiar with. In my opinion this will leave only two possible people who could clinch the nomination. I believe the first and most obvious is of course Sarah Palin current governor of Alaska and the Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008. The other person who I can see winning the nomination is former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Huckabee did fairly well in the 2008 primary despite starting out as a second tier candidate. Huckabee currently has a show on Fox News which I believe will continue to help with his familiarity and name recognition, not only with the Republicans but with the nation as a whole.

Other names that have been mentioned are former Governor Mit Romney and current Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Governor Romney would be a perfect candidate for my hypothesis and I do believe he could win, however he has already stated he will not run in 2012. Bobby Jindal would be great if he can win, however as my historical analysis has shown he may be to new to the scene in order to win the Republican nomination.

I really look forward to hearing some of everyone’s thoughts and opinions. I think this is a very good hypothesis and perhaps even a theory? You guys be the judge, but I do believe there is some sort of pattern!